Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that he had purchased a belt worth Rs. 1699/- from the shop of the opposite party on 12/05/2016 vide bill No.10072. The opposite party is the authorized dealer of Batta Company. The said belt became damaged within one month. The material was of low quality and not fit for wearing. It was cracked in many places and has been separated. The complainant went to the shop with the belt and complained about the damage of the belt. The opposite party admitted that it has some manufacturing defect of that batch. On 31/08/2016 the complainant went to the shop with this belt and demanded them back the price paid or to replace the belt. According to the instruction of the opposite party, the complainant returned the belt. But so far the opposite party has not replaced the belt or did not paid back the bill amount.
3. According to the complainant, the defect of the belt is due to low manufacturing quality and hence the opposite party is liable to replace the belt. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused mental agony and financial loss as such the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite party to replace the defective belt with a new one of the same brand or to return it price of Rs. 1,699/- with 12% interest along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of this proceedings.
4. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite party for appearance. But the opposite party is not appeared hence this Forum declared him as exparte on 21/06/2017.
5. On the basis of the allegation of the complainant, the points to be considered are:
1. Whether the compliant can be allowable?
2. Regarding the relief and cost?
- The evidence of this complaint consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Ext. A1. After the closure of evidence the complainant was heard.
- The Point:- The Complainant’s allegation is that he had purchased a belt from the opposite party which was totally became out of use due to its manufacturing defect. The opposite party is the authorized dealer. So the complainant approached the opposite party for redressing his grievance. But he did not turn up. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service, which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. So the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. Therefore, the complainant prays for allowing this complaint.
- In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 4 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, he was examined as PW1 and the documents produced are marked as Ext. A1 to Ext. A4. Ext.A1 is the cash bill dated: 12/05/2016 issued by the opposite party in respect of the sale of the belt. Ext. A2 is the letter dated: 03/11/2016 sent by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext. A3 is the e-mail dated: 06/12/2016 from the customer service center. Ext. A4 is the copy of the letter dated: 06/01/2017 sent by the complainant to the customer service care.
- On the basis of the allegation of the complainant, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the complainant had purchased a belt for Rs. 1699/- from the opposite party on 12/05/2016. The said belt was torn and cracked and it became useless and the same was returned. It cannot be repaired. But the opposite party did not return the amount or replace the same. His evidence would shows that there is clear deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
- Since the opposite party is exparte and there is no reason to disbelieve the allegation of the complainant, the complainant’s allegation stands proved against opposite party as unchallenged. Therefore we find that the above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. Hence, we find that this complaint is allowable against the opposite party. In the particular context of the case, now there is no meaning in directing the opposite party to replace the belt with a new one because no confidence can be placed on the opposite party from their conduct. So we decided to direct the opposite party to refund the price of the belt Rs. 1699/-
- In the result, the complaint is allowed there by the opposite party is directed to refund the price of the belt Rs. 1699/- along with compensation of Rs. 4,000/-(Rupees Four Thousand only) and Cost of Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) to the complainant within 15 days from the receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount with 10% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2017.
(Sd/-)
Sheela Jacob,
(Member)
Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : P.A. Varghese
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Cash bill dated:12/05/2016 issued by the opposite party.
A2 : Letter dated: 03/11/2016 sent by the complainant to the opposite party.
A3 : e-mail dated:06/12/2016 from the customer service center.
A4 : Copy of the letter dated: 06/01/2017 sent by the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: Nil.
(By Order)
Copy to:- (1) P.A Varghese,
Parakkal House, Paippad P.O,
Vellappally
(2) Bata India Ltd.,
Bata Shoe Store, Deepa Towers,
Deepa Junction, Thiruvalla.
(3) The Stock File.
